Do you feel that women should have the right to get an abortion?

No, I don’t. I think women having the right to choose what to do with their bodies comes before they help create another little person. Of course I think exceptions can be made for cases where the baby is harming the mother, but just because a person might be dependent on another person for life, doesn’t mean they’re not a person themselves with their own right to live. Like the group presenting said, abortion can also have an adverse effect on women. They shared the fact that more women that not regret having an abortion. Abortion can also cause a host of horrific effects. These include, psychological damage, bleeding, sterilization, death, etc. Stopping abortion can also encourage more adoption in the US. I don’t think abortion is covered under the 14^th amendment as an issue of privacy or due process. As Su-Chin would say, “Your baby has fingernails!”

How do you feel about Jack Kevorkian and what he did when he was alive?

Honestly, I think he was a little creepy.  However, I think his heart was in the right place. I think it is alright for terminally ill patients to choose when to end their lives, so I think that it was brave of him to be willing to help them even though it came at great personal cost. Like the presenting group said, to be able to kill yourself in Washington and Oregon you have to have been diagnosed as terminally ill by two physicians and have six months or less to live. There is a 15 day waiting period and you can opt out at any time. In fact, it’s the patients who administer the fatal medication so everything is up to them. Kervorkian was just a little ahead of his time. What he did brought more attention to this issue which was a good thing. Obviously, Kervorkian made headlines and he got to talk to people like Barbara Walters. It wasn’t as though Kervorkian was practicing euthanasia; he only helped terminally ill people who were in a lot of pain, but lucid. Kervorkian stood up for what he thought was morally right even though it wasn’t legal which I think can be considered commendable.

Is it ethical to create and harbor weapons of mass destruction?

No, it’s not because weapons of mass destruction harm not only people, but ecological systems as well. Mass destruction is also brought down on innocent civilians which I don’t think is right. Wars should be fought between militaries, not a military and children, workers, the elderly, etc. During WWII when America dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese were able to be defeated sooner, but innocent people were killed and/or irrevocably damaged. Nuclear bombs bring about an absolute destruction that can go on for years because of radioactive fallout. The presentation in class on weapons of mass destruction showed Japanese people severely disfigured by burns from the bombs. Exposure to radiation can cause cancer and radiation poisoning. This can make areas uninhabitable for decades which has a profound effect on humans and other living creatures. Harboring and creating weapons of mass destruction also builds tension between countries. For example, everyone, especially Israel, is uneasy of Iran building its nuclear weapons program. Efforts are being made by many countries to dispose of weapons of mass destruction which is how I think things should be. The devastation caused by weapons of mass destruction can make victory seem fleeting.

If you knew there would be no repercussions for your actions, would you be an online pirate? Why or why not?

 I wouldn’t be a pirate because it still is illegal. I know a lot of people who pirate and get away with it. I don’t pirate because I find it morally wrong. I’m the kind of person who buys all their songs from Itunes. I’ve never illegally downloaded anything. Although nothing is technically stolen in pirating (it’s just copied), I don’t think it’s fair to the person/people pirated from. Even though the group who presented the issue of pirating made the point that only a tiny fraction of the sales from a song goes to the actual artist, I don’t want to make that fraction smaller. Would anyone want to perform a job or service for free? Even if my pirating didn’t lead to personal repercussions, the issue of pirating has inspired bills like SOPA, ACTA, and PIPA which have honorable intentions, but can infringe on freedom. They can also be detrimental to relatively innocent websites like Wikipedia or Youtube being shutdown simply for not catching pirates in a timely manner. For me, pirating is wrong and that has nothing to do with whether or not it carries consequences.

My position on designer babies and why

I think creating designer babies is wrong for many reasons. First of all, it eliminates a child’s choice. Letting parents choose designer babies, like the negative side of our debate said, puts expectations on PGD children that may not be fulfilled. Another example is that some PGD children are created solely for the purpose of being donors for their sick siblings. These children would be expected to donate which is unfair. Along with PGD putting children into undesirable situations, it also puts the embryos that are not chosen to be implanted in an undesirable situation. These embryos are usually discarded or frozen and then discarded. PGD can ensure a child doesn’t inherit a disease, abnormality, or disability, but this brings into question what is considered a disability. What about when someone wants to use PGD to give a child a ‘disability’. For example, a deaf lesbian couple wanted to use PGD to have a deaf child. PGD could be used to avoid gender selective abortions, but this is only feasible for rich people and sex selective abortions are more prevalent in the developing world. Anyway, using PGD for gender selection can disrupt the gender ratio. As PGD technology advances, it can create a gap in society socially and economically. It can also have deleterious effects on the gene pool. Parents should just be happy with whatever children they end up. Along with the picky parents, parents who want to use PGD to get rid of diseases should probably just adopt. That way they can get a healthy child and save $20,000.